Correct Application of the Old Testament
3. Another favorite charge against the exact truth of the New-Testament Scriptures is drawn from the use of the Old Testament in the New, and especially the phenomena of its quotation. Here also, however, most of the objections urged prove nothing but a radical lack of clear thinking on the part of those who bring them. For instance, Dr. Davidson argues that the verbal variation which the New-Testament writers allow themselves in quoting the Old Testament is conclusive against verbal inspiration, for “the terms and phrases of the Old Testament, if literally inspired, were the best that could have been adopted,” and therefore the New-Testament writers “should have adhered to the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit (seeing they were the best) as closely as the genius of the Hebrew and Greek languages allowed.” Here, however, a false view of inspiration is presupposed, and also a false view of the nature and laws of quotation. Inspiration does not suppose that the words and phrases written under its influence are the best possible to express the truth, but only that they are an adequate expression of the Hevmeneutics, p. 513truth. Other words and phrases might be equally adequate — might furnish a clearer, more exact, and therefore better, expression, especially of those truths which were subordinate or incidental for the original purpose of the writing. Nor is quotation to be confounded with translation. It does not, like it, profess to give as exact a representation of the original, in all its aspects and on every side, as possible, but only to give a true account of its teaching in one of its bearings. There is thus always an element of application in quotation; and it is therefore proper in quotation so to alter the form of the original as to bring out clearly its bearing on the one subject in hand, thus throwing the stress’ on the element in it for which it is cited. This would be improper in a translation. The laws which ought to govern quotation seem, indeed, to have been very inadequately investigated by those who plead the New-Testament methods of quotation against inspiration. We can pause now only to insist — (1) That quotation, being essentially different from translation, any amount of deviation from the original, in form, is thoroughly allowable, so long as the sense of the original is adhered to; provided only that the quoter is not professing to give the exact form; (2) That any adaptation of the original to the purpose in
hand is allowable, so loDg as it proceeds by a true exegesis, and thus does not falsify the original; (3) That any neglect of the context of the original is allowable, so long as the purpose for which the quotation is adduced does not imply the context, and no falsification of sense is involved. In other words, briefly, quotation appeals to the sense, not the wording, of a previous document, and appeals to it for a definite and specific end; any dealing with the original is therefore legitimate which does not falsify its sense in the particular aspect needed for the purpose in hand.* The only question which is relevant here, then, is. Do the New-Testament writers so quote the Old Testament as to falsify it?
Many writers who have pleaded the phenomena of the New Testament against verbal inspiration yet answer this question in the nega-
* Still further: the amount of freedom with which a document is dealt with will be greater in direct proportion to the thoroughness with which it is understood. If a quoler feels doubtful as to his understanding of it, he will copy it word for word; if he feels sure he ‘understands it fully and thoroughly, he will allow himself great freedom in his use of it; and if he is the author of the original document, still more. If he is conscious of having supernatural aid in understanding it, doub less the amount of freedom would be greatest of all. tivfc. Tims, Mr. Warington admits that there are “no really inapposite quotations” — “the pertinency of the quotations .may be marred by their inaccurate citation, but pertinent, notwithstanding, they always are. In a word, while... the letter is often faulty, the spirit is always divinely true.”* This is simply to yield the only point in debate. Others, however, of not such clearness of sight, do not scruple to assert that the New-Testament writers do deal so loosely with the Old Testament as to fall into actual falsification, and this mainly in two particulars: they quote passages in a sense different from that which they bore in the Old Testament, and they assign passages to wrong sources. As an example of those who make the first charge we may take Prof. Jowett, who is never .weary of repeating it. f But when we ask for his proof, it is found to rest on four false assumptions, tacitly made: that difference in form means difference in sense, that typology is a dream, that application through a true exegesis is illegitimate, and that all adoption of language binds one to its original sense. Thus Prof. Jowett has difficulty in finding apposite examples,
* Jnapiration, p. 107.
t See St. FauCs JEpp., etc., vol. i., p. 353 sq.: London, 1855. and those he does finally fix upow fail on examination.* Dr. Sanday, in his excellent class-
* The following are his examples: Rom. ii. 24, “where the words are taken from Isaiah, but the sense from Ezekiel.” Possibly a true criticism; what is illegitimate in it? Note, however, that this is “probably not a formal quotation, but an expression of Paul’s own thought in Old-Testament words, and hence the “as it is written” succeeds (not precedes) the quotation; this “as it is written” may therefore refer to Isaiah as quoted, or to Isaiah and Ezekiel, or to Ezekiel alone, now remembered by the apostle. (Compare Beet with Philippi Meyer in. loc.) Rom. ix. 33, where only a composition of two passages takes place, which are rightly “harmonized,” as Prof. J. admits, in Christ. 1 Cor. iii. 19, where the words are altered from the Psalm to suit the context indeed, but also in direct agreement with their context in the Psalm, so that no alteration in sense results. Eora. x. 11, which is called an “instance of the introduction of a word [Traf] on which the point of the argument turns,” but which is simply a case of true exegesis and application to the matter in hand. The same passage, and without the TTCf, had already been quoted in this context (ix. 33); Paul now requotes it, calling attention to the force of the unlimited 6 iriorevuv by emphasizing its sense through an introduced Trdf, and confirming his interpretation immediately by an additional Scripture (verse 13). Compare Luke xviii. 14, as given in Matt, xxiii. 14, as an exampie of like explanation. 1 Cor. wr. 21, which is admitted to be a case “of addition rather than alteration,” and any objection to which must rest on a tacit denial of typology, which even Meyer admits to be historically [ficatioD of New-Testament quotations as to
justifiable here. Rom. x. 6-9, presenting alterationa which “we should hesitate to attribute to the apostle but for other examples, which we have already quoted, of similar changes,” but which, even if considered as a quotation, is defensible enough; then how much more so when we note that it does not profess to be a quotation, and is probably nothing more than the expression of the apostle’s thought in old and beloved words! 1 Cor. XV. 45, “a remarkable instance of discrepancy in both words and meaning from Gen. ii. 7.” Quite true, and therefore neither in words nor meaning taken from Gen. 7. Prof. J. has simply neglected to note that the quotation extends only to ^(Jaav, (Cf. Meyer in loc.) Kom. X. 13, where the charge of change of meaning rests only on a misunderstanding of Mai. i. 2, 3. Rom. iii. 10 sq., “a cento of quotations transferred by the apostle [from their original narrow reference] to the world in general.” As if Eccles. vii. 21, Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 12 were not already as universal as anybody could make them, and as if the choice of passages throughout was not admirably adapted to Paul’s purpose, which was to prove that all men are sinners — yes, even the Jews. Rom. xii. 20, which requires no remark. And finally six allegories, which are immediately admitted not to be allegories in the only sense of the word which would be to their disadvantage — i. e. in the sense of an interpretation which treated the literal sense of the words as unimportant, in which sense of the word no allegory occurs in the New Testament. These “allegories” are, Bome of them, simple illustrations, some typical inter* pretatlons. their form * cites two passages only m hich can be plausibly asserted to be cases of mistaken ascription — viz. Mark i. 2 and Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. The first of these ought not to present any difficulty. The form of the sentence shows that the actual words of the citation are parenthetical in essence: Mark declares that John came preaching in accordance with a prophecy of Isaiah, and then inserts, parenthetically, the words referred to, adding also a parallel prophecy of Malachi. That he gives more evidence than he promised ought surely to be no objection; it is enough that, having promised a prophecy from Isaiah, he does give it. This is strengthened by the fact that the prophecy quoted from Malachi is actually based on, and largely drawn out of, Isaiah, so that Isaiah is actually the ultimate source of both the prophecies given, and that from Malachi can be rightly looked upon as simply a further explanation of what is essentially Isaiah’s. The quotation in Matt, xxvii. 9, 10, on the other hand, docjs present a difficulty, and is indeed, in whatever aspect it be looked upon, a very puzzling case. It presents the extreme limit of paraphrase of the original, and it is exceedingly difficult to assign all its parts to their proper originals. It is plain, * Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 16-25. however, that Zech. xi. 13 was strongly coloring the writer’s thoughts when he wrote it. Yet he ascribes it to Jeremiah. Here, it is said, is a clear case of erroneous ascription. This judgment, however, takes no account of the exceeding difficulty of ascribing the words actually quoted to Zechariah alone. There seem to be but three ways in which the passage can be plausibly understood, and no one of these implies an error on Matthew’s part. We may either (1) understand the words as a very free paraphrase of Zech. xi. 13, and then appeal to the fact that in the Talmudic arrangement Jeremiah stood first in the “book of the prophets,” so that Jeremiah here stands as general title for the whole book — with Lightfoot, Scrivener, Cook, Schaff-Riddle, etc; or (2) take the reference in v. 9 as intended for Jer. xviii., xix. — apart
from which passage, indeed, the quotation following cannot be understood — and suppose the quotation itself to be deflected to the words of Zechariah, so that the passage becomes analogous to Mark i. 2, and is meant to call attention to both Jeremiah and Zechariah — with (in general) Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Thrupp, Fairbairn, etc,; or (3) we may, with Lange, find the originals of the words in four passages in Genesis, Zechariah and Jer-
70 rNSPIRATIOX.
emiah, the key to the whole being Jer. xxxii. 6-: 8. Whichever of these views may be accepted is of uo moment so far as the present question is concerned; each alike is consistent with the evangelist’s truth, and therefore with his inspiration.
With these examples we must close. It is only necessary to add the caution that the passages dealt with are supposed by Mr. Jowett and Dr. Sanday to be the most striking and difficult ones that could be put to the apologist out of the two hundred and seventy-eight quotations which the Kew Testament makes from the Old. It is surely not presumptuous, then, to assert that Mr. AVarington’s wisdom is apparent, and that it is true that the New-Testament quotations always preserve the ne of the Old-Testament passages.
And with this, this paper must close. It has been possible, of course, to examine only samples of critical objection. But those that have been examined are samples, and have been selected wholly in the interests of the objection. These laid, therefore, and all are laid. The legitimate proofs of the doctrine, resting primarily on the claims of the sacred writers, having not been rebutted by valid objections, that doctrine stands
...A doubly proved. Gnosis gives place to epignosis, faith to rational conviction, and we rest in the joyiul and unshaken certainty that we possess a Bible written by the hands of men indeed, but
^. a’lso graven with the finger of God.